CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Phillip M. appeals from an order of the juvenile court imposing a condition of probation prohibiting him from participating in gang activity, including social events, after the juvenile court found that appellant came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because he committed misdemeanor vandalism. (Pen. Code, 594, subd. (a).) He contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by imposing the probation condition because the circumstances of appellants offense and his background did not indicate he was connected with gangs. He also asserts the probation condition is vague and overbroad. Court affirm.

A legal guardian appeals from an order adjudicating a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387[1]supplemental petition and removing custody of two minor children from the legal guardian. We find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that the factual allegations of the petition were true and that the previous disposition had not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the children, and we therefore affirm the juvenile courts adjudication of the petition. Court also find that the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile courts dispositional order, and that removing the children from the legal guardians custody was not an abuse of discretion. Court affirm the order.

In this juvenile dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300 et seq.),[1]Desiree W., the mother of the dependent minor child S.H. (Mother and S., respectively), has filed a petition for extraordinary writ for relief from an order that set a section 366.26 hearing to determine a permanent plan for S. Mother contends the trial court erred when it found that she was provided with reasonable family reunification services and further found that she was not in substantial compliance with her case plan.
Real party in interest, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department), has filed a motion to have Mothers petition for extraordinary writ dismissed on the ground that Mothers notice of intent to file such petition was not timely filed. Although her notice of intent was filed only one day late, the time requirement for filing such notices is mandatory unless there is a showing of exceptional good cause for not complying with that time requirement. Mother has not made such a showing and therefore Court dismiss her petition.

Defendant Russell Wade Watson entered a negotiated plea of guilty to unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations of a prior strike and prison term. The trial court imposed the stipulated term of five years state prison, ordered a $400 restitution fine, stayed a $400 restitution fine pending successful completion of parole, a $20 court security fee, and awarded 63 days credit (43 actual and 20 conduct).
Defendant waived the preliminary hearing and asked for immediate sentencing after the entry of his plea. The facts of the offense are therefore taken from the complaint. Defendant took Michael Huberts Dodge Dakota truck without his consent.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

In this action for fraudulent conveyance, defendant Lucia Hernandez (Lucia)[1]appeals a judgment awarding plaintiff Roberto Hernandez (Roberto) $86,034.02 in damages, $25,643.64 in attorney fees, and $10,979.46 in prejudgment interest. The court also found Lucia liable for payment of a prior $65,114.61 judgment, plus interest in the amount of $11,816.31, entered against her former husband Lenin Hernandez (Lenin). Lucia contends the judgment should be reversed because (1) Lenin was an indispensable party to the action and should not have been dismissed, and (2) Roberto's claims in this action were litigated in a prior lawsuit and barred by collateral estoppel. Court affirm the judgment.

A jury found that the determination by the Board of Prison Terms that defendant met the criteria for being a Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) was true. Defendant here appeals from that finding, contending that certain items of evidence were improperly admitted, requiring reversal of the finding. Court disagree and affirm the finding.

Defendant Andre Ledon Booker appeals from his conviction of robbery (Pen. Code, 211) and possession of a firearm by a felon ( 12021, subd. (a)(1)) with related enhancements. He contends the trial court prejudicially erred by giving an erroneous instruction on the elements of aiding and abetting a robbery. Booker also joins in the arguments of his codefendant to the extent they benefit him. Court find no prejudicial errors, and affirm.

On February 6, 2007, after a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of appellant, Dawn R., to her children A.R., Cristina R., and F.R. On appeal, Dawn R. contends the juvenile court erred in failing to apply exceptions for termination of parental rights where the children would benefit from continuing the relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) and termination of parental rights would substantially interfere with sibling relationships ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E)).[2] Dawn R. further argues that having a caregiver who is not a member of her own tribe undermines the intent of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.). The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

On February 20, 2007, Heather M.s parental rights were terminated at the conclusion of a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal, Heather M. argues that she maintained regular visitation with her daughter, her daughter would benefit from a continued relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)), and the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights. The judgment is affirmed.

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 - 8.452) from the juvenile courts orders issued at a contested 12 month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter A. Court deny the petition.

This action arises from a collision at the Squaw Valley Resort between a skier, appellant Melinda Sesto, and her snowboarder friend, respondent Dallas Kachan. Moments before the collision occurred, Sesto was skiing ahead of Kachan on the same slope. On impulse, Kachan decided to catch up with Sesto in order to give her a congratulatory pat on her buttocks. The two collided after Kachan accelerated towards her on his snowboard with his arm outstretched. As a result of the collision, Sesto fell and sustained serious injuries. On appeal, Sesto contends that the trial court erred in determining that assumption of risk was a complete defense because Kachan failed to make the requisite showing under Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 320 (Knight) that his conduct was within the range of ordinary activity involved in snowboarding and did not increase the inherent risk of a collision on the ski slope. For reasons that Court explain, Court agree and therefore Court reverse the judgment.

Plaintiff Anna Chambliss appeals from an order dismissing her medical malpractice action against the Regents of the University of California (Regents). The trial court dismissed the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(5), which provides for the dismissal of an action when one party fails to appear for trial and the other party requests dismissal.
Prior to the date set for trial, plaintiff had requested a continuance because of alleged discovery abuses. The trial court denied the motion. Plaintiff now claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying that motion, and abused its discretion in failing to continue the trial after it became aware of plaintiffs unavailability due to illness. Court conclude there was no abuse of discretion, and affirm the order of dismissal.

A jury found defendant Jeffrey Steven Darneal guilty of second degree burglary of Walgreens (count one), petty theft of retail merchandise from Walgreens with a prior conviction (count two), and receiving stolen property from Rite Aid (count four). It acquitted him of petty theft of retail merchandise from Rite Aid (count three) and burglary of Rite Aid (count five). The trial court found that he had served two prior prison terms. He was sentenced to state prison for five years eight months. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) his receiving stolen property conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence that the items he received from Rite Aid had been stolen; and (2) the upper term sentence for petty theft with a prior conviction violates Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. [166 L.Ed.2d 856]. Court affirm the judgment.

Defendant Justin Jeremy Mahlet pleaded guilty to grand theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (a))[1]and admitted a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1)). Following a contested hearing, the trial court sustained an allegation that the prior conviction was a serious felony within the meaning of the three strikes law. ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Defendant was sentenced to the lower term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months in state prison. The court also imposed a $600 restitution fine, stayed a $600 restitution fine pending successful completion of parole, and awarded 361 days of presentence custody credit (241 actual and 120 conduct days). Sacramento County sheriffs placed a bait vehicle, a truck equipped with an electronic tracking device, on Sunrise Boulevard. In the bed of the truck was a portable generator worth approximately $1,600. Defendant, who was driving a tow truck, cut the chain holding the generator and placed it in his truck. The tracking device led deputies to defendant, who confessed to stealing the generator.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, Court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. The judgment is affirmed.